Subject: Fwd: Re: Your speech at the Magna Carta Memorial
From: Veronica
Date: 21/11/13 3:10 pm
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

Daniel Hannan responded ... so I responded back.

Don't expect any further response.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Your speech at the Magna Carta Memorial
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:04:51 +0000
From: Veronica <>
To: HANNAN Daniel <>

Dear Mr. Hannan,

Thank you for your clarification, and your response.

So ... what you are saying is that ... while the Magna Carta 1215 stated very clearly the Right to a Jury Trial ... and took the Monarch out of the question of what was - and was not "Law" (in the specific instance of any Trial) ... it was OK for another Monarch (John's son) to wade in again?

My reading of the Magna Carta 1215 was that it expressly forbade anything such as that, declaring that such a thing was null & void for ever.

Which of course, has led to the fact of Jury Nullification ... which I'm sure you will know all about ... whereby a Petty Jury of 12 have the indefeasible Right to ignore any provision of any Parliamentary (or even European) Statute. A Right that has been exercised many times(*), both here and in other Common Law Nations.

Kind regards,

(* Although nothing like frequently enough, of course. Largely because Juries are not informed that they have such a Right)

On 21/11/13 2:48 pm, HANNAN Daniel wrote:

The short answer is that, during the reign of John's son, Henry III, conciliar government was seen as the way to hold the king to the terms of Magna Carta - something that led to the calling of the first recognisable Parliament  in 1265. The fuller answer is contained in my brand new book:



Read Daniel in the Telegraph online at


-----Original Message-----
From: Veronica []
Sent: 20 November 2013 18:54
To: HANNAN Daniel
Subject: Your speech at the Magna Carta Memorial


Dear Mr. Hannan,


I watched your speech at the Magna Carta Monument with interest.


I hope I am writing to the right person? If so, would you please be so

kind as to explain how "enforcement" of "the law-of-the-land" became

"Parliament" ... rather than the preceding text, which is "by the lawful

judgement of his equals"?


Kind regards,



(Living in - what is known as - the South of England)